Litigator Libations

Send us Fan Mail

This week Major Ryan Crnkovich steps in with an outstanding examination of unanimous verdicts in courts-martial after the Supreme Court's watershed case of Ramos v. Louisiana.  Major Crnkovich breaks down this complex issue with a walk through the significant case law and some excellent analysis.  

Send us Fan Mail

In this episode we discuss the first case out of the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces to discuss the new Article 117a (wrongful broadcasting of intimate images) and we discuss questioning witnesses in a way that conveys that we dispute their testimony without confronting the witness (and thereby allowing them to repeat or bolster their narrative).  Happy Listening!  

Send us Fan Mail

In this episode we discuss the case of Hemphill v. New York, where the Supreme Court held that an accused did not waive his right to confront an absent witness when he offered  evidence that implied the absent witness was the true perpetrator of the offense.  
We then discuss how to respond when your witness refuses to remember a fact of consequence despite having their memory refreshed.

Send us Fan Mail

In this episode we discuss the case of United States v. Quezada, where the appellant was convicted of a sexual assault (Article 120) and of false official statement (Article 107) for denying that the sex act that amounted to the sexual assault occurred.  The issue is whether the "false exculpatory statement" instruction undermined the appellant's presumption of innocence and right to due process . . . it didn't.  We then move on to discuss the hearsay exception for declarations of a then-existing mental, emotional, or physical condition.  

Send us Fan Mail

This episode discusses the first opinion of the term from CAAF - US v Moratalla, where CAAF demonstrates that criminal law attorneys do not understand secured transactions.  The episode then goes on to discuss the often abused hearsay exception - excited utterances.  Happy listening!

Send us Fan Mail

In November 2021, the Air Force's Interpersonal Violence Task Force issued its report regarding the way the Air Force handles allegations of various forms of interpersonal violence, ranging from verbal harassment to physical violence.  This episode discusses how the report may assist defense counsel in negotiating alternative dispositions in certain cases.  The advocacy portion of the episode focuses on the admissibility and use of lay opinions regarding the demeanor of a third party.  Enjoy!

Send us Fan Mail

This episode discusses an Article from The Army Lawyer regarding the No-BCD Special Court-Martial and finally provides the fifth part of our five-part series on cross-examination with a prior inconsistent statement, in which we discuss proving up the prior statement.  

Send us Fan Mail

In this episode I provide a mea culpa and seek to course-correct when it comes to motions to dismiss for failure to state an offense.  Recently the President has sought to render these motions non-jurisdictional but the RCMs still allow it to be raised any time prior to adjournment.  Because I thought the motion was jurisdictional, I agreed with the judiciary that defense counsel were required to notify the court that it lacked jurisdiction over the offense.  But if it is not jurisdictional, and the RCMs say you can raise it at any time . . . there may be cases where you want to see how findings plays out before raising the error?   In the advocacy piece (at 15:37), I give some of my personal thoughts on opening statements.  Happy listening.

Send us Fan Mail

This episode discusses the first (and perhaps only) published opinion of the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals in 2021 -- United States v. LePore.  In that case the full court met to decide they had no power to decide the issue of whether the Appellant's conviction triggered the firearm prohibitions of 18 U.S.C. 922(g).  The episode (at 14:30) then goes on to discuss the rules of completeness and how they apply at courts-martial.  

Send us Fan Mail

In United States v. Willman, the CAAF found that certain evidence could be considered by the CCA for one purpose but that the same evidence was not within the record for any other purpose (the takeaway is to ensure as much as possible gets in the record).  The episode then turns to what is often the most enjoyable part of the impeachment with a prior inconsistent statement -- the confrontation step!